ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2240

Partnering in Research: Maximizing Benefits & Minimizing Risks in Patient-Researcher Relationships

Jenny Leese1, Graham Macdonald2, Bao Chau Tran1, Lianne Gulka3, Alison Hoens3, Sheila Kerr3, Wendy Lum3 and Linda Li4, 1Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 3Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, BC, Canada, 4Rheumatology, Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, BC, Canada

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: ethics, patient engagement and qualitative

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Title: Patient Outcomes, Preferences, and Attitudes Poster III

Session Type: ACR Poster Session C

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Patient engagement in research has become a key requirement of many research funding organizations in Western countries. The principle of justice is central to patient engagement, indicating an ethical imperative for people who may be affected by health research to have the right, if they choose, to a say in what and how research is undertaken. There is, however, little empirical evidence to better understand ethical issues encountered in the everyday practice of patient engagement, particularly from the perspectives of patients. Our objective is to explore benefits and risks within patient-researcher relationships from the perspectives of arthritis patients with experience engaging in the research process.

Methods: The project is jointly designed and conducted by researchers and patient partners. Participants were invited to take part in a one-hour in-depth interview, in-person or by phone. Eligible participants were current or past members of an arthritis patient advisory board in a research centre. A semi-structured topic guide was used with prompts and probes to elicit detail about relationships with researchers. An iterative thematic analysis was conducted using constant comparison methods. A lens of relational ethics was found to highlight benefits and risks originating in emergent themes. Key elements of an ethical relationship, according to a relational ethics framework, include mutuality (encompassing deep understanding of each other’s values), choice and consideration of context.

Results: In 2015-16, 22 participants (aged between 26 and 68 years old) were recruited. Twenty-one (95%) were female, and 14 (64%) had at least one university degree. Of the 21 participants who reported, 12 (55%) had inflammatory arthritis, 5 (23%) had osteoarthritis, and 4 (18%) had both. Time spent as a patient partner ranged from 1 month to 10 years. Benefits and risks in patient-researcher relationships emerged across 2 distinct but related themes: 1) “Being Heard”: Participants described being heard as a mutual benefit in respectful patient-researcher relationships. Being heard involved having patient and researcher perspectives taken seriously and acted upon in the research process, which required patients and researchers to value different ways of knowing (e.g., lived experience, objective fact); 2) “Being with Supportive People”: Participants valued researchers who actively supported them to manage (actual and potential) negative physical and emotional impacts (e.g., fatigue, stress, uncertainty) of engaging in research in the context of their daily lives.

Conclusion: Findings make visible important values and behaviours for developing and maintaining ethical patient-researcher relationships, from the perspectives of patients with varying experiences of engaging in arthritis research. These values and behaviours can serve as a guide for researchers and patients who have chronic illness to anticipate and address benefits and risks that may arise in their engagement with each other. Our findings are a critical step to fostering everyday ethical practices of patient engagement in research that are anchored in patients’ perspectives.


Disclosure: J. Leese, None; G. Macdonald, None; B. C. Tran, None; L. Gulka, None; A. Hoens, None; S. Kerr, None; W. Lum, None; L. Li, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Leese J, Macdonald G, Tran BC, Gulka L, Hoens A, Kerr S, Lum W, Li L. Partnering in Research: Maximizing Benefits & Minimizing Risks in Patient-Researcher Relationships [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/partnering-in-research-maximizing-benefits-minimizing-risks-in-patient-researcher-relationships/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/partnering-in-research-maximizing-benefits-minimizing-risks-in-patient-researcher-relationships/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology